The appeal of Spider-Man that was destroyed by propagandists who won't defend the hero's dignity

The Conversation wrote a stupefyingly fawning "history" of Spider-Man (via Hip Hop Canada), supposedly to celebrate the non-landmark 1000th issue. Near the start:

This autumn marks a special occasion in the Marvel universe: Spider-Man, perhaps the most popular superhero of all time, has reached issue #1,000 in the comics series.

The tale of a scrawny teen from Queens who was bitten by a radioactive spider at 15, Spider-Man premiered in Marvel’s Amazing Fantasy #15 in August 1962 as a last-ditch attempt to save the dying series. The story of Peter Parker’s witty, agile alter ego quickly became an international sensation.

The defining hero of our times, this 1,000th edition also begs the question: what is it about superheroes that make them routinely outlive almost every other cultural property out there – regular heroes included?

My ongoing research into the world of superhero franchises may present a partial answer. Over the past several years, I have read a few thousand comic books, seen most (if not all) superhero films ever released, and interviewed dozens of superfans across the globe. I believe the secret to the longevity of Spider-Man (as well as countless other superheroes) lies at the nexus of four qualities cultivated over many decades within Marvel and DC, the two largest names in superhero entertainment for almost a century.

Those qualities were destroyed years ago, no thanks to these very same apologists for the publishers and editors, and where they go at the expense of the creations. I'm sure they'd do the same with Daredevil if they thought it made a great target. Does he really think Spidey and other superheroes are outliving other products at this point when they're in such dire artistic straits, and have lost sales and audience as a result?

1. Spider-Man is unreliable

Heroes are heroes because we always know where they stand. From Hercules to Luke Skywalker, a hero is a person of generally high principles and integrity. Heroes are reassuringly reliable, almost by definition.

In contrast, superheroes are compelling because they are unreliable, even to themselves. For instance, Spider-Man quits being Spider-Man altogether in The Amazing Spider-Man #50, and publicly unmasks in the Civil War comic book series (which undermines the character’s long-established anonymity). He is actually replaced in The Amazing Spider-Man #698-700 by arch-villain Doctor Octopus, who for a while becomes a harsher, more violent “superior” Spider-Man.

Across these stories, Spider-Man is never just a fixed moral archetype. Instead, he is a character whose very meaning can be repeatedly unsettled. And, comparing Spider-Man across different eras and manifestations fascinates the fans, who can never agree on what Spider-Man actually is outside of the name and a now-canonised origin story.

Look who's talking. A so-called "researcher" who's proven he's utterly unreliable if he brings this up entirely sans objectivity. He doesn't see anything wrong with Civil War, whose divisive politics were one of the worst things about it, in addition to its being an example of heroes fighting each other more than villains? And he doesn't see anything wrong with the Doc Ock switcheroo story from over a decade ago, one of the most atrocious tales turned out by Dan Slott? The way the Conversation's writer brings that up almost makes it sound like this happened in real life. It didn't, and it's not above criticism, yet no objective approach is taken to referencing it at all. Besides, if superheroes aren't reliable, can't that actually imply they're not so admirable at all?

The writer evidently isn't a Spider-fan, or he'd admit it's regrettable Spidey - and Mary Jane Watson - had to be subject to only many increasingly bad storylines ever since the Clone Saga first came about, though it was with J. Michael Straczynski's run that continuity really got derailed. We could even say it's also where John Romita Jr's artwork started becoming seriously mediocre, which, now that I think of it, is also what the late Darwyn Cooke's artwork could be described as. The Clone Saga is also brought up in the following "point":

2. Spider-Man is actually Spider-People

At first, Spider-Man was just Peter Parker. Over time, however, Spider-Man stopped being a single character and became a narrative role that different characters could inhabit together and in parallel.

For instance, Ben Reilly, introduced as Peter’s clone in The Amazing Spider-Man #149, eventually takes over and becomes Spider-Man during the 1990s Clone Saga. Miguel O’Hara, a brilliant scientist, then reimagines the character for the future in Spider-Man 2099. There are several more incarnations too, including Peter Porker (aka Spider-Ham), a pig bitten by a radioactive spider, Spider-Spider (a spider in the Spider-Man costume), and even a medieval British version called Peter Parquagh.

Over time, Spider-Man no longer describes one biography so much as a portable combination of recognisable powers, a loose moral compass and visual codes. For fans, this makes the brand unusually elastic. As they do not have to agree on a single definitive Spider-Man, they can attach themselves to the version that best fits their tastes.

Gee, doesn't this make clear Spidey's uniqueness has been effectively drained by too many imitations that ultimately don't add up to anything merit-based in terms of writing? This is stupid, and it's practically the reason why the premise of passing the mantle may have only worked with the Flash in the DCU, when Wally West took over where Barry Allen left off, and might've worked far better with the 2nd to 3rd Robin if it hadn't been for how the death of Jason Todd in 1988 was turned into a telephone poll. The Spider-verse cartoon from several years ago is where Peter Parker's uniqueness really got turned meaningless, and does anybody actually talk about it today? At this point, you don't really even hear about it anymore, and decidedly for good reason.

But this does indicate the writer's basically saying that whoever makes a big deal out of characters like Miles Morales at Peter Parker's expense isn't really a fan of the latter's creation in 1962. And it's sad how the creation of a mask that covers the entire head and face wound up being exploited as a way to push social justice propaganda. The columnist doesn't find it even the least bit sad how Stan Lee's creation was diminished by absurd "commercialization" that only makes the whole product pointless? Says all you need to know about what kind of phonies are writing these superficial puff pieces.

3. Spider-Man: no way home

Almost by definition, heroes must undergo the hero’s journey: they are called to an adventure, transformed by an ordeal and eventually return home as changed people. This has been a consistent pattern since Odysseus at least.

In contrast, Spider-Man never really gets to go home, as his supposedly formative experiences simply become the beginning of further experiences. For instance, in The Amazing Spider-Man ##121-122, the death of Gwen Stacy, Peter’s friend and first love, permanently upends the emotional stakes of his life – a fact that reverberates in Spider-Man #1000.

Decades later, however, he marries Mary Jane Watson. But The Amazing Spider-Man #544-545 dissolves this marriage and resets much of his adult existence again. That is, before Brand New Day begins yet another personally tumultuous phase in #546.

None of these moments supply a final transformation. Spider-Man simply can never graduate from being Spider-Man, the tortured Hamlet of superheroes. Therefore, his journey becomes less a cycle and more a never-ending life story in which apparent endings are continuously folded into new beginnings. For fans, this constant regenerativity creates a peculiar promise: older fans can “grow old” with Spider-Man, while new readers always encounter what feels like a brand new beginning.

I guess the writer's saying he absolutely loved One More/Brand New Day, and the embarrassments it led to. He doesn't approach the subject through a critical lens, and worst, makes it sound almost like all this happened in real life. He's obviously not a fan of MJ either, or he would've noted how repellent her treatment as a character's become ever since. And now former editor C.B. Cebulski did no favors by overseeing what looked like a long-called-for reunion between Peter and MJ in 2018, only to break it up shortly afterwards.

The writer sounds like he literally believes Spidey should never have true, organic success at anything, as though every such creation's writing paths should be even more extreme than how Charlie Brown's portrayed in Peanuts. As a result, the Conversation writer only ends up devaluing MJ by extension, and fascinating how he doesn't see anything wrong with Peter making a faustian pact with Mephisto. Even if that's not as abominable as how DC's Identity Crisis played out, it's still very reprehensible and contradicts how Peter was written years before. Even during the Clone Saga, Spidey was never written that absurdly.

4. Spider-Man remembers everything

Traditional heroes usually arrive with relatively little narrative baggage, and their defining trials and transformations are contained within finite and carefully staged stories.

Every new Spider-Man story, however, enters a world already crowded with previous stories. Spider-Man does not merely accumulate stories. Instead, later stories continually reactivate, reinterpret and cross-reference earlier ones.

This accumulated baggage can surely make the Spider-verse difficult to navigate for some. But it also rewards familiarity and time investment: the more Spider-Man you consume, the more meanings, references and connections become visible, turning laborious research into a source of pleasure and expertise.

Spider-Man’s longevity is the product of a highly specific narrative architecture. Spider-Man can contradict himself, multiply into different people, begin again after apparent endings and continuously mine his own past for new stories. These qualities make Spidey unusually difficult to exhaust, as each new generation of fans inherits a Spider-Man that is both recognisably old and strangely new.

Issue #1,000 is therefore less a culmination than a proof of concept. Looking back at more than 60 years of constant reinvention, Spider-Man’s greatest superpower may simply be his ability to go on despite all odds.

I think "remembering everything" is the problem. There's no distinguishing between good and bad storylines here, yet noticeably no mention of Straczynski's Sins Past storyline from 2004, which is where his shoddy run on Spidey really became a serious disaster. Those who initially acted as apologists for JMS and Marvel's mandates should be ashamed of themselves. What's so "carefully staged" about a story where Gwen was made to look dreadful by having sex with Norman Osborn, which she was never overly depicted doing with Peter back in the day?

And the 1000th issue doesn't "prove" anything, save for how badly worn out classic properties have become as a result of all these pointless boomerangs to "grudge matches" between heroes and recurring villains. To keep strip-mining older stories is something that could even be said about various other superhero creations like Superman, Avengers, Iron Man, Batman, and Justice League, but the reason these modern minings fall flat is because they're not done with respect for past continuities up to the turn of the century, and they're not done with respect for the personalities originally attached to the superheroes and co-stars. The writers and upper echelons may claim there's "humanity" and "reality" in these shoddy PC stories of theirs, but it's not organic or plausible so much as it's phony, and only makes the heroes look more like scumbags and idiots than flawed individuals.

And then some propagandists whose fandom is questionable and put words in actual fandom's mouths have the gall to come along and defend the worst directions taken by the writers and editors. To say nothing of acting as apologists for the entire publishing company themselves. If they don't have the courage to admit they're on the side of the company, that's precisely the problem.

There was actually a time when Tom Brevoort cared about Marvel continuity?

As plenty of comics readers may know, Marvel editor Tom Brevoort is one of the worst, most contemptuous of their modern staff today, showing no concern over how far they've fallen in terms of artistic consistency. Well, I found the following post from the Life of Reilly blog, covering the history of the infamous Spider-Man Clone Saga, suggesting he took a surprisingly different approach 3 decades ago. The statements were originally provided by writer Glenn Greenberg:

Mark and I would discuss this stuff a lot, sometimes in the presence of my boss, Tom Brevoort. I recall that Tom B., who's always placed great value on Marvel continuity and has always tried not to blatantly disregard it, kind of shook his head and shrugged his shoulders in our discussions. As I remember it, Brevoort didn't think Norman's return could ever possibly work anyway, at least from a continuity standpoint, so any efforts to make it work with the rest of Spider-Man's history was ultimately a futile effort. Brevoort felt that there was just no way that Norman could have been alive all that time, considering all that happened in the world of Spider-Man since his apparent death. Tom B. felt that if Norman could manipulate Spider-Man's life from afar, for so long, to such an extent, then so much of what had occurred in the books over the years would never have happened, or would have happened very differently. So Brevoort's attitude was to just go with the flow and forge ahead and not get too bogged down in the background details, because there was simply no way that we'd ever be able to address and fix every continuity conundrum raised by Norman's return.

Brevoort's attitude was certainly justified, and there was another major reason why: None of the core writers had extensive, encyclopedic knowledge of every facet of Spider-Man's history, and they weren't about to go back and start rereading every single Spider-Man story ever published from AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #122 to the present. Besides, realistically speaking, how much of this background information would ever make it into print in the comics, anyway? The worst thing we could do as storytellers would be to get to the final chapter of the clone saga and bog it down in a long series of flashbacks explaining everything Norman did since his apparent death, and how it all worked with the concurrent events in Spider-Man's life. By being so slavish to continuity, we would end up stopping the main, present-day story dead in its tracks. And no one wanted that. But still, there were so many nagging questions that needed to be addressed! Hell, there was enough material to fill a whole separate book! But now I'm getting ahead of myself… ]

If Brevoort was respectable of continuity then, it's definitely stupefying how different he's become ever since. Less than a decade after one of the sloppiest stories ever written that forced the 4-5 series of the times to be joined together telling its saga in what could be more or less described as an editorial mandate - a very poor way to handle such matters - Brevoort changed considerably, as his subsequent work on stories like Avengers: Disassembled hints. Why did he change, some could wonder? Could it be Joe Quesada and Bill Jemas convinced him it was entirely worth setting inconsistencies and distortions in motion, along with contrived and forced retcons that hurt Scarlet Witch, and Mary Jane Watson and Gwen Stacy by extension? After all, that's what Avengers: Disassembled could be described as to boot, and Brevoort was a leading editor on titles related to Avengers for many years, and later set about forcing storylines onto them where the heroes would end up fighting each other.

This could also explain why, in the past decade, there were writers who said "continuity is the devil", but I guess the tug of money explains by extension why they never argued whether Marvel/DC should come to an end and creator-owned comics pick up from where the majors left off. Or at least why they should move away from heavy handed leftist ideologies. So of course, just when there could've been a decent ending for both publishers in the early 2000s, they had to ruin everything by prolonging their descent into awfulness. And Brevoort was but one of the leading figures responsible for their downfall, as he abandoned his original standings for the sake of their worst directions ever since.

South Korean singer launches "comic book tour"

The Korea Times announced a songwriter named Eldon (oddly spelled with a lowercase E) is launching a tour for a song project that appears to be inspired by his comics reading:

Korean singer-songwriter eldon kicked off his first-ever world tour Saturday, bringing his “Comic Book” series to Asia and the U.S.

The tour kicked off following the release of “Finalé,” a surprise single released Thursday that serves as the final installment in the R&B act’s music series of the same name. [...]

The “Comic Book” project, in the singer’s own words, is “a story about things that aren’t funny at all, told in a way that refuses to be serious.” The concept took shape after the artist realized how he usually turns to reading comic books whenever he wants to escape heavy, dark emotions.

“I always made the safe choice in the past, but I could see myself slowly sinking in that safe place, you know?” he remarked. And so he decided to walk the opposite way. “When I got there, there was another me over there, too.”

While he’s known for his romantic indie pop aesthetics, his latest offerings present an edgier, more seductive soundscape. The opening release in the “Comic Book” series called “Tango,” for instance, blends his signature R&B style with sultry Latin- and Western-inspired rhythms.

“I think my work is inspired by what I’ve been listening to lately, which is a lot of Bad Bunny, Travis Scott and Justin Bieber,” he said, adding that the music is also his way of celebrating touring in North America. These influences are also apparent in subsequent releases “RUN & GUN” and “Juliet.”

True to the project’s comic book motif, the tracks are accompanied by music videos featuring animated versions of eldon and characters based on people in his life. The dog featured in the animation, for instance, is modeled after his own dog, Meong, while Grabber, a demon character, takes its name from the stage name of an R&B artist friend.

“The animated world is actually connected to the real world we live in. So yeah, there’s a lot of my real life in there, if you look closely,” eldon noted.

That's pretty peculiar he says it's not about funny stuff, yet simultaneously isn't serious. But if he reads comics for escaping from the darkness, that's a good thing, and it's exactly why the western comics and animation industries have to stop forcing so much darkness down everyone's throats, and at the same time, stop using divisive politics as a precondition to developing anything bright. For now, good luck to Eldon with his new worldwide music career.

A comic about the hearing-impaired

ABS-CBN announced a Filipino comic about deaf people is being adapted to theater:

A comic book by Deaf Filipino artist CJ Reynaldo that uses humor to introduce Filipino Sign Language and explore the experiences of Deaf people will be adapted for the stage by Apothecary Productions in November.

“Whatcha Saying?” follows CJ, a Deaf freshman student navigating life in a hearing world. When he meets his schoolmates Liam and Sarah, the three find ways to communicate as they explore friendship, love, identity and college life.

Published by Komiket, the graphic novel was a finalist at the 39th National Book Awards. Its stage adaptation will be performed in Filipino Sign Language, Tagalog and English, with a running time of about 45 to 60 minutes.

As somebody who believes theater's an important medium that shouldn't be overlooke in an era where cinema long became entrenched, they have a great idea to turn this into a stage play. And the subject of hearing-impairment is important too.

"Black Heroes Journey" exhibit in west Philadelphia

Billy Penn at WHYY reported about an exhibition of Africa-American themed comics at the University of Pennsylvania, and a new GN about the 1955 murder of Emmett Till, which is authored by artist Eric Battle:

Some people spend decades figuring out what they want to do with their lives. Eric Battle found his calling at a corner store in West Philadelphia when he was 5.

“I can still remember the day, like it was yesterday,” said Battle, now 59.

He was walking to the store with his mother and two sisters when he discovered a comic book spinner rack in the back.

“I ran over and flipped through the comics. And it’s been a love affair ever since, but that spawned my interest in drawing and reading and everything else,” he said.

That fascination grew into a career illustrating stories for Marvel and DC Comics, children’s books and graphic novels. Now, Battle is helping explore the history of Black characters and creators in comics through “The Black Hero’s Journey,” an exhibition that opened Oct. 15 at the University of Pennsylvania’s Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts.

Battle is a co-curator of the exhibition, which runs through May 13, 2027, in the Goldstein Gallery at the Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center. The free exhibition traces the evolution of Black comic book heroes and the people who created them, with a particular connection to Philadelphia.

For Battle, its opening also comes as he prepares for the publication of “Framing Emmett Till: Exposing Dark Fear,” a graphic novel he spent more than five years illustrating.

Written by Christopher Benson, the book follows an anonymous Black writer investigating Till’s murder. It draws on Benson’s experience working with Till’s mother, Mamie Till-Mobley, on her memoir, “Death of Innocence: The Story of the Hate Crime That Changed America.”

Till was a 14-year-old Black boy from Chicago visiting relatives in Mississippi when he was abducted and murdered in 1955 after a white woman accused him of making advances toward her.

His mother insisted on an open casket at his funeral so the public could see what had been done to her son. An all-white jury acquitted the two white men charged with his murder. Till’s death and the images of his battered body helped galvanize the Civil Rights Movement.

Benson is a journalist, attorney and associate professor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. The book is being published by Megascope, an Abrams ComicArts imprint curated by John Jennings, a professor at the University of California, Riverside, and a friend of Battle’s.

This reminds me of 6 years ago, when propagandist Heidi MacDonald was spouting leftist talking points like "believe women", even though there have been cases where false accusations are made, and the Till tragedy is one of them, right down to how the jury clearly predetermined their verdict in Mississippi. I'm sure MacDonald knows perfectly well her MO was flawed, and since that time, it's become apparent Warren Ellis, another leftist whom she threw under the bus, was not guilty of the mass "grooming" she took part in accusing him of. That doesn't mean I like his work. But to make absurdly petty issues over stuff that was otherwise consensual only ends up hurting the cause of actual victims, and let's not forget when MacDonald defended the disgraced CBLDF manager Charles Brownstein years ago.

Now to return to the subject, while Battle's got an interesting project to run in a history exhibition, I found out that, when he began working in comicdom years ago, and tried to work in the majors, he didn't have the best assignment:

To break into comics, he traveled to New York City to show editors his portfolios.

“It took quite a while before I was able to get my first job in comics, but that’s how it all really started,” Battle said.

His first Marvel assignment involved Cable, the X-Men character, in backup stories written by Jeph Loeb.

That wasn't considered the best written X-Men material produced, since it didn't have much clear direction to it, and came at a time when the cracks were forming in quality storytelling. Also, let's remember Cable, as he first appeared as an adult in 1990, was developed by the dreadful Rob Liefeld in the last 2 years of New Mutants, and Loeb later proved himself one of the most overrated writers in comicdom, recalling the Hush storyline he wrote for Batman, one of his "all style, no substance" type of approaches. So if Battle's now working more in the independents, he should be glad, considering how below rock bottom Marvel and DC became ever since. I wish him good luck with this exhibition and the GN's publication, and I also hope he'll consider that even today, there's a lot more that needs to paid attention to in modern times as well, if we're ever to improve just how bad things have become again, and that's also something that can make for important material for graphic novels/comic books. Those who wish to improve society and retain civility need to show the courage to actually deal with serious issues in modern times as much as the past.

Actor Samuel Jackson reflects on friendship with Stan Lee

Actor Samuel Jackson told People about how he got to know the late Stan Lee while appearing in some Marvel adaptations as Nick Fury:

Samuel L. Jackson is reflecting on his longtime friendship with the late Marvel universe creator Stan Lee.

While attending The Beast premiere at the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in Los Angeles on Oct. 6, the actor, 77, learned that he’s just behind Lee when ranking performers in cumulative box office revenue across all film roles.

The late co-creator of iconic comic book characters including Spider-Man, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Iron Man, Thor and the X-Men had worked on around 200 films when he died at 95 in 2018.

While growing up on Lee’s work, Jackson never envisioned having the opportunity to meet him.

“Things like that happen that you never expected,” he told PEOPLE at the L.A. premiere. “Those are things that you can’t even imagine when you’re a kid and you’re reading the books and you see his name all over the place.”

“Never occurred to me as a kid growing up in segregated Tennessee, I would meet Stan Lee,” he added. “So when it happens, it’s not even a dream come true. It’s something beyond that.”

Jackson, who plays Nick Fury in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, described Lee as a “wonderful, charming person” while reflecting on what a delight he was to be around.

I think it's great Jackson got to meet a figure he admired, but I'm sure there's people who're wondering why he - or more precisely, the studio - had to take the woke race-swapping route when they cast Jackson in Nick Fury's role instead of creating a new character who could take more or less the same prominent role as a leading S.H.I.E.L.D field operative. Let's consider that the political correctness got worse in some way or other in how the Marvel movieverse went forward, with post-2018 movies being particularly dreadful, including the 4th Thor movie (and lest we forget, there too, some race-swapping occurred with Heimdall earlier on). Was it really that necessary? Of course not, and for all we know, Jackson could surely have been cast as Robbie Robertson, one of the senior editors at the Daily Bugle in Spider-Man's series as well, and unlike Fury in the comics, Robertson was created as Black. Since Robertson was depicted as more favorable to Spidey than J. Jonah Jameson ever was, Jackson could've been perfect for the role of Robbie.

So Jackson's admiration for Stan the Man is appreciated, but it's a shame if he won't debate whether the S.H.I.E.L.D director who'd previously led the Howling Commandos in the first series Fury headlined should've ever been race-swapped. Of course it's absolutely terrible Jackson had to grow up at a time when the mid-south was held hostage to racial segregation, but that doesn't mean established fictional characters created as white should be changed to Black/Asian/Latino as a way to apologize. It's always possible to create new ones and not have to rely solely on what's already been created for the same comics-based movies. That kind of PC mindset has long ruined even DC comics, and it's something that has be moved away from and the original incarnations should be allowed to be made use of again.

NYC street named after Spider-Man

JNS reports a New York assemblyman arranged to have a street named after Stan Lee's famous wall-crawler in NYC's Forest Hills neighborhood in Queens, which was depicted as Peter Parker's place of residence as far back as the late 1980s:

Peter Parker, better known as Spider-Man, was born in Forest Hills, as the comic book backstory goes. The grandparents of New York state Assembly member Sam Berger also lived in the neighborhood.

“As the grandson of Holocaust survivors, who settled in Forest Hills and rebuilt their lives in Queens, I’m especially proud to see Spider-Man Way recognized in the very community they helped build,” Berger told JNS, of the newly named street in the Queens neighborhood in New York City.

“My grandparents may not have had superpowers, but they understood that with the opportunity to build a new life came a responsibility to give back and leave their community better than they found it,” he said.

Berger, who represents the area and advocated for the street naming, connected that legacy to the Jewish creators, who helped shape American comic books, including Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Will Eisner, Joe Simon, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

Lee penned the Spider-Man comics, while Steve Ditko illustrated them.

“Through their stories, they helped generations understand that our greatest strength isn’t measured by our powers or achievements, but by how we use them to stand up for others and make the world around us a little better,” Berger told JNS.

“That’s a legacy worth celebrating, and one that makes Spider-Man Way especially meaningful here in Queens,” he said.

But not meaningful to horrible figures like current mayor Zohran Mamdani, who've done plenty already to desecrate the memory of the aforementioned Jewish comics creators. Come to think of it, there's even a presumably Jewish city comptroller who's now doing the same, exactly what Mamdani wants. That has the regrettable effect of dampening the impact of Berger's work to have a street specially named after a comics character a Jewish writer created.

That said, Berger's work is admirable, but then, how about if there were to be a street named after Mary Jane Watson? After all the abuse Marvel under Joe Quesada seet in motion, it could be a great way to draw a special spotlight on one of Stan's most famous co-star creations. I'd strongly recommend Mr. Berger consider trying that out next.